Sorry,
I don't take anything for granted (you notice that already). I'll try to find couple books about this. (In a week or so, after I'm done with the final exams)

One of the things they don't do is generalizing. We don't know much about some parts of our history, and early historian used to generalize some things, and made some wrong assumptions.

I'll do a small :ot: here.

It was believed that pyramids in Egypt have been built by slaves, but resent discoveries showed that pyramids where build by trained workers, who used to live close to pyramid with their families. This and more is found after workers city is discovered. So in history you can't take anything for granted, as there is always some chance that you might discover another fact.

Yes i heared about this theory serveral times. Mainly the guide was lauding this theory.
But even there the evidence is quite meager: if you concider the fact that they found remains of fish in the worker camps proof that the workers weren't slaves, or that the head-master of the slaves was granted a tomb.
i'm sorry but thats hardly substantial evidence.

I've seen both the National Geographic documentary aswell as heard the guide rattle on about it and you must agree that fishbones, a grave belonging to an architect and communal sleeping halls are far from substantial evidence that all those who built the pyramids were indeed workers.

Evidence is not based only on that! (and I am sure you know that too)

First of all there is evidence that they performed surgical procedure on workers. If they were slaves, do you think they would try to heal them, or just simply replace them? Also they found evidence that workers belonged to groups, and that there was kind of competition between the groups (who will do more).

Also, it's not just fish that they found, but all different kind of food, including bones of animals. By analyzing the worker bones, they figure out that workers have been feed really well. Also they found a whole bread baking village. Another discovery happened after they found workers houses. They lived family lives, which also brings idea of them being a worker, not slave, as it was believed before.

And for the end, there might be some slaves, but it's not as it was believed before, and you have right to have your own opinion, and believe whatever you like. For some reason I found one of professors from British archeology team to be more trustworthy then you. :D

Oh I believe the ammount of exports who denounce this theory way outnumber the supporters.

yes but by whome? The egyptians or the slaves themselves, patching one another up after a terrible day of labour.

I'm sure the egyptians had mastered the foundations of scientific management by then. Organized work (workers devided in groups and each given specific tasks) speeds up production (or construction in this case) whereas everybody running around working in an unordered fashion will cause confusion and eventually create setbacks.

This is something the documentary itself claimed not to be so sure about. Since it was possible that those that carried out the most work got more benefits. Or perhaps the egyptian contruction overseers kept records of who did more work and who needed some extra 'motivation' aka whips

The supportors of this theory appear to forget this was a slavecamp, not a deathcamp.
What good is a starving slave? A starving slave surely can't haul massive slabs of rocks from the quary to the building site.

Nobody ever disputed the fact that the slaves had families. Once again what good is a slave if he doesn't leave offspring to continue his work?

The way I heard that the pyramids were built was that while the Nile was flooding, when there was nothing to do other than wait for the waters to subside, the people were recruited to build pyramids and when the flood waters went away they came back to work on their farms.

First of all, there was no evidence before of some procedures as amputation. After discovering more of workers grave, they found bones of workers that had for example hand amputated. Bones showed that workers was able to work after this, which means that there was no infection. DO you really believe slaves had tools, and knowledge to do this by them selves?

You really believe that they used whips on the workers? Do you believe that they should find them around (like they found the tools), or at least be able to see them on the walls as representation of might (which they loved to do at that time)?? All evidence showed that workers where treated really good, and that they were crafty handymen.

Should slave have possession? Think about that, as they find a lot of stuff in workers houses.

Why don’t you say why you don’t like this theory? It might save us a lot of time, as at the end we will came to that.

Yet, again you can show all your ignorance to the facts…

I wasn't aware carbondating could tell the age of a fracture days apart.
What is the proof that the worker did indeed no die of an infection, that fractures suffered were caused a week or a month before.

you mean except for the fact that whips were actively made like pens nowadays. And the fact that buildingmasters are portrayed lashing the slaves with whips, as yous aid yourself, there is indeed no evidence :whistle:

So you claim these images found in serveral tombs were just fantasies. Images of delusions of power. Thats fair... tell me have you ever heard of the phrase "the simple solution is usually the right one", I think it is applicable here.

Simply because I agree with the majority of the archeologists who claim these theories to be erronous. I simply disagree with it and whenever I ehar these so-called facts I feel as if the entire story was twisted into confirming these "facts"
Your whip-theory being the pinnacle-example of this.

And so the prey feels cornered and lashes out, much like a skunk unleashes a foul-smelling gas at its predator at a time of distress.

Lord, grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

If somebody amputates hand, end of the bone looks different if a hand is being used for a long time, then if you never used it. It's very simple. Doctors are also able to predict how long this person was living without the hand.

See, you wrong here too. Theory does not say that there were no slaves in Egypt, but that there were no slaves in most of work on pyramids. Reason is simple. Trained worker are much more productive and easier to work with then slaves. (Who most likely did not speak the same language?!)

As I said, there are new proofs (not even a year) that support this theory, and I believe that majority of archeologist will be convinced with the facts. (Except the one who don't like to be persuaded by the facts, and are having their own beliefs) If major of archeologist believe something, will you too?


Once again, why are you avoiding to say real reason why you are opposing this theory?

Yes its much more clever to waste intelligent workers than slaves... isn't it?
Everybody spoke Egyptian, it was like English is today.

You're argument doesn't hold ground

You accuse me of not being able to know what is going on in Israelbecause i live in europe, yet here you are claiming you are up to date with all the recent finds in Egypt.
Sorry to say so but up till now most archeologists are sceptical about dropping years of proof (like the wallpaintings) for some theory which doesn't completely fit the image.

Allah forbid people having other beliefs than those you hold dear, eh Anub?

You assumed I didn't tell you the real reason?
Pray do tell me what my reason is. Since its obvious you are fishing for some reason.
Maybe you'll find some intricate web which proves that the theory that it wasn't slaves that built the pyramids proves that Israel is now killing Palestinians and that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real book and that I, as a wicked zionist with a crooked nose and a thirst for blood and money, am trying to hide this from the world.

You crack me up little buddy

Only in Hollywood everybody speaks the same language. :D Not so true. it all depends from where slaves where. ;) At that time even tribes had their own dialects and different languages.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroggy@Dec 6 2004, 01:58 PM You're argument doesn't hold ground

You a bit funny here. LOL

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroggy@Dec 6 2004, 01:58 PM You accuse me of not being able to know what is going on in Israelbecause i live in europe, yet here you are claiming you are up to date with all the recent finds in Egypt.

Now you are mixing a bit. You are biased toward Israel, and you don't believe any other news except Israel's. What that has to do with me and Egypt? Me being biased towards old Egypt and their religion (my nick is one of the gods, which surely proves it LOL) See, here you are wrong. If they prove that this theory is wrong, I will accept what archeologists conclude. And till that, there is no reason why I should not believe that new findings are not fine?

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroggy@Dec 6 2004, 01:58 PM Sorry to say so but up till now most archeologists are sceptical about dropping years of proof (like the wallpaintings) for some theory which doesn't completely fit the image.

Image is every day more complete, as they dig more and more from the workers city site, which used to be a home for about 20000 people. Archeologist did not have this evidence before, so they just guessed, now the guess will end.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroggy@Dec 6 2004, 01:58 PM Allah forbid people having other beliefs than those you hold dear, eh Anub?

What Allah has to do with this?

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroggy@Dec 6 2004, 01:58 PM You assumed I didn't tell you the real reason? Pray do tell me what my reason is. Since its obvious you are fishing for some reason. Maybe you'll find some intricate web which proves that* the theory that it wasn't slaves that built the pyramids proves that Israel is now killing Palestinians and that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real book and that I, as a wicked zionist with a crooked nose and a thirst for blood and money, am trying to hide this from the world.

You are starting again with all those lies. (they might become true if you just repeat them enough :D) This only shows what kind of stress you live under, and how do you assume that anybody who does not think the same as you is anti-Zionist.

This does not prove much more, then that pyramids were built by trained workers, and that project of this size at that time was done by good use of work force, not by torture, as suggested in Hollywood.

<!--QuoteBegin-Stroggy@Dec 6 2004, 01:58 PM
You crack me up little buddy[/quote]

Time will (and is already showing) who cracked here. Would not call you 'little' as that might offend you. :not_ok:

Topic Split.

@anabis: try to stay on topic next time (just create new one instead of going of topic.)

At the time did not believe that Stroggy is so much against scientific and logical way of study of history. :blink:

Only posted this as example how much Hollywood can be wrong. :)

Sorry, will try not to repeat that. :ok:

theres a theorey the pyramids where alien spaceship landing pads :| :borg: :borg: :eeeeeh:

Everybody knew egyptian, you are forgetting Egypt was a gigantic empire. Every city had its own dialect so that argument is moot

people still use "lol" :eeeeeh: ?!



Sure if you concider albawaba and AEL.org pro-israel
It was a joke at your expense, don't crack your face.

The archeologists who oppose don't need to prove its wrong. The archeologists who support the theory should prove its right. Until they come up with some good evidence I'll hold to my own standpoint.

Oh they sure are digging, but they aren't exactly finding any evidence that I know of.

Whats this, random trivia info or just flaunting your 'knowledge' :D

I'd say god but you'd accuse me of racism

Once again you didn't notice I was joking. again: don't crack your face.

Didn't Nasser say that once?

OK - so a word from a historian...
First off - Stroggy and Anubis - you are arguing about wheather the pyramids were built by slaves or not - remember?
The first claim was made that the slaves built them. On what was this claim made? The evidence supporting this claim is not stronger then the one saying they were built by paied workes. There are in fact more evidence saying the people weren't slaves - but these evidence must fight against a set way of thinking. That's a real problem historians have - not just regarding pyramids.
So about the pyramids - R Havell told you - they were built by people that were recruted to build them while the Nile flooded.
Of course these people were payed workers. But it's unrealistic to think that the builder - the Pharao would rather pay people to build something then to use his free work force - the slaves. So the theory is as follows - they recruted as many payed workers they needed - after using slaves. So both were working on the pyramids.
When you explore the history of the payed workers - and the craft work needed was probably done only by experianced craftsmen - not slaves - then you get a story of well fed and cared for workers that achieved a monumental structure. When you look at the work that needed pure man power - pulling the block,... Well not much experiance needed for that one,...
You must also know that slavery had many different levels!
There were people that were inslaved because they couldn't pay depts (basically forced labour) and were set free after they have done enough work!
Then you had slaves that were brought back from wars - these were used for pure menpower - but theri number was not really big. You must keep in mind that these are only people, who were captured during a combat (most of them fled or died - and the oposing armies rarely counted more then 5000 men - both sides).
There was also the third kind of slavery - or better to say hostages. These were importaint poeple from an enemy tribe, nation,... This was to insure them peace. The idea was - if you have four sons of the king you were at war yesterday at your court (at a point of the sword) the king will not dare to attack. After a number of years these people were returned (again not without thought) - they were shown the best way of life - in order to want them to be like the people who held them hostage (or were offered to marry into their families). So after taking their leading posistions they would not wage war on Egypt.

In any case - a workforce of slaves alone would not be big enough to build the pyramides - so they had to hire workers too!

They spoke the same language only if they enslaved their own people or that they already rule that region long enough so that they speak same language. (again the same people) At the time regions @ today’s Middle East is where they enslaved a lot of people. Do you really believe that they spoke the same language?


That's exactly what are they doing with latest discoveries, and that's how old guess about who built pyramids will be replaced with current theory, only if proven to be right.

Funny again. LOL

No idea. My teacher of history used to say the same.

You missed to say would you accept the theory true if majority of archeologist accept it as true?

So I was correct when I said that?

Impressive

Can you tell as also a bit about languages?

Did all of them speak only one language, or there is a trace of language barrier between these people?

Thanks for nice and well made answer!

since Egyptian is related to Hamitic (North African languages) and Semitic (languages such as Arabic and Hebrew) most if not all people in or around the Egypt spoke the language or some variation of it.

Stroggy,
sebatianos language and my language belong in the same language group, and believe me, they are well different.

The writen language of Egypt - the one we can read today - shows traces of different influences, so either there were periods of "good" and "bad" Egyiptian - like the case is with latin (actually showing that the writen lagnuage was different then the spoken language) or writers from different parts of the empire spoke in different dialects.
There were also non-egyptian people living in Egypt. They contributed to the language also - as well as the merchants did. Finiding new words - new landscapes with features unknown to them,... contributed to the change in language.
But the most common theory is that people spoke different languages - belonging to the same language groups (similar to modern day China).

So you've found an exclusion.

But Dutch and German sound a lot a like, as does Polish and Russian to some extent.
And hebrew and arabic sound alike since they are both from the same orgine (semitic)
So I think the further you go back in time to closer the languages are.

So there you have it.

Well - most European languages derive from the indo-european language group. So everything from Jidish to Hindu would belong to the same language group - but over the years languages drifted further apart.
So yes - the more you go back in time - the closer the languages were!
BTW - as a profesor of English I am a lingust as well as a historian :bleh:

Zašto se onda praviš da me ne razumiješ? :bleh: :D

As far the languages goes, how close are Phoenician, Sumerian and Egiptian?

Summerian and Phenitian would be about as similar as modern German and Dutch are. Egyptian would be like French.

A zašto te ne razumijem? :blink: Razumijem - ali se ne slažem (bar u nekim stvarima). :bleh:

Bar u pogledu Egipatske istorije izgleda da se slažemo. :D


If I remember right, Phoenician is some sort of origin for Arab, Hebrew, Latin and couple other languages. it had some influence on Egyptian to. :blink:

Stroggy, how come when I talk to somebody from Holland, they don't know what a snotvalling is, while everybody that speaks Dutch and is from Belgium knows what it is? Or when an American whom I've taught the expression Slukes, which's understood in whole Dutch-speaking Belgium, said it to somebody from Holland and got a Huh? What's that? in return? Even tighter... why do you think on Belgian television, they subtitle those that speak West-Flemish? It's officially the same language.

I think it would've had to have been willing workers. Surely they would not have been able to find capable stonemasons etc. from pure slavepower? and wouldn't workers have believed it was their DUTY to get their Pharoah to his afterlfe?

Phoenician is younger then Egyptian and it's not really a point of origin for those languages - but it influenced them. It was the first language that used phonetical alphabet - so other languages that use phonetical alphabet (no matter which simbols they use as long as one symbol represents one sound) were influenced by it - so that they started seperating the sounds of sylables, but Hebrew, Arab and Latin did not derive from Phoenician.
The similareties of Hebrew and Arab language are due to the fact that Islam developed out of Judeism (as unlikely as that seems to be right now) and that both languages were developing at the similar theritory with many contacts (trade, culture, wars,...).

Both points are correct, but not completely accurate. Some surely wanted to enjoy a part of the glory of their living god - the Pharao, but most of them went off to season work - something many poorer farmers did (and basically still do).
So not much slave power for the craftmanship. Well - just read my first post in this thread - it more or less says the same!

That's probably what I remembered, that alphabet's originate from them.

As far as religion goes, I was always under beliefs that Islam developed out of Christianity, which on the other hand developed out of Judaism. Reason for that is that many names used in Christianity (but not in Judaism) had similar corresponding in Islam. (isus = isa etc.)

What history claims so far is this:
Christianity had a part in it too, but mainly Mohamed was influenced by the Jewish merchants he was in contact with. First Muslims turned toward Jerusalem at the time of their prayer - not to Mecca!
But they thought that Christianity was the next step of Judeism so they accepted Jesus as one of the wise men who came before Mohamed, but the Arab world had no real contact with Christians nor were they directly influenced by them. They were only aware of them. First contact was when they waged wars and came to Egypt and then when they came to Spain. The strongest Christian influence on Islam however was while they were attaaching Constantinople and latter on when the Turks made it their capital (but that was centuries latter).

ever heard of ABN
the basis is the same.

How many people actually speak ABN? And how many people understand each other? And even then... what do you do with Fries? That's officially Dutch too. It's the case for a place as small as Belgium and Holland, so what'll it be for a place as big as the Egyptian empire, where alot of different languages have to adapt to one?

But all these languages (german, dutch) can be traced back to Germanic.
Same with Egyptian, while in the later empire the language could have unraveled a bit, all languages stem from a mix between Semitic and another language whose name escapes me for the moment.

Oh and for your information I speak ABN, I've lived in Antwerp all my life and I can't for the life of me speak with an Antwerp accent.
And yet I can understand people from Antwerp, Blankenberge, Gent aswell as utrecht or Amsterdam.

Perhaps there are some expressions indigenous to locations. But if thats the case ever neighbourhood would have their own language since about every neighbourhood has her own inside-joke which is often mixed into common tongue and could, over time, evolve into a saying.

So you are saying Belgium's main language isn't Dutch because not everybody speaks it exactly the same way, or some people use words like "snotvalling" thats a bit extreme.

He would like to agree with you, but only if I oppose what are you saying. :D :D

There was really nice documentary on discovery chanell about communication problems first tribes had when they discovered another tribes. That was before any civilization.

Ok, different example then, as you're too hardheaded to see the point. You know how, when Russia became big, made all countries under it speak Russian? How many farmers from white-Russia do you think actually were able to speak it?

This is now extreme case.

All language discussion is based on your idea that everybody in Egypt and around it (that's where are slaves from ;)) spoke one language, which would be the same as to say that everybody today speaks English. English is widely used language, but you might find out that people are not willing to abandon their own language, even if they are occupied by the enemy, or part of bigger country. (Canada for example)

OK - I think I should explain something!
Languages and dialects are not the same!
Let's take English (as the best and most wide spread example)!

Jamaican, South African, Indian, Australian, US, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English (not to mention some certain dialects within England - like Cockney) are all the same language ENGLISH. But do you really think they would understan each other? Then there's also Pigeon English (black english) and many other varietys.
The language all these people speak is English but what words they are using and how they pronounce them is very different (not to mention that many words do not apeare in different regions).

So basically many different dialects, accents,... (there are over 12 subcategories of a language) exist - but the language is still the same - even if the grammar they use is different (US vs. British - different spelling, different tenses,...).

That is ok, but it is just hard for me to believe that all tribes around egipt spoke the same language. :blink:

It depends how you look at it (and which time period).

The empire of Egypt started building Pyramids around 3000BC (at that point in time there weren't many tribes in the area anyway). You only had a few civilizations that settled down - mostly they were nomadic tribes. Those spoke different languages depending where they came from - but the only elevated language these tribes knew was Egyptian - so they used it (it's at least highly probably - not proven yet) to comunicate with others. But these nomadic tribes were of the similar origin as Egyptians - and only they had a developed language capable of higher abstract thought. It's not easy to understand that - but take a look at many words of latin origin in our languages (it's not because of the christianity - but because of the lack of apropriate words in the 'barbaric' languages). And other language groups (germanic, slavic,...) had languages much more different from Latin then those tribes from Egyptian.
Another such language was Sumerian - but the two cultures had no direct contact - although they knew of the existance of the other.
Later in history other tribes came to the region (and the population grew - so there were more tribes - from further away). But this is between 1500BC and 1000BC. At this point in time it's unrealistic to claim that they spoke the same language - but Egyptian was certainly the 'lingua franca'.

You, too, percist guess that makes you at least as heardheaded as I am.

Somehow I still don't understand how hardheadedness is a bad thing :blink:

so, pyramids turned into how languages are derived from eachother? ok :P

Well the pyramids themselves are an importaint monument to the society - and since they are reaching towards the sky (although not at the correct geographical location) you might say they turned into our little Tower of Babel.

Egypt hmmmmmmmmm never been to that country is it nice..... :blink:

yes and no.

The fake tourist cities/hotelresorts in the Sinai are wonderfull, little slices of heaven

Cairo itself is probably one of the filthiest cities on earth.
Channels filled with trash, trucks with misc. animal parts on top rotting in the sun during a traffic jam.
And the city ruins almost everything, the city is REALLY close to the pyramids and the shops nearly border the sphinx... did ruin the atmosphere a bit.